Out: Nope, no, no and no. It is for sport and for protection. Firearms nothing but a tool.

Tulare CA

Username hidden
(1879 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I have seen both men and women casually stroking tools that are phallic in shape. Also utensils, bedposts, baseball bats, etc. It's likely they usually aren't aware of what they're doing, unless they're being deliberately obvious, as in flirting.

There's clearly a large subconscious component to the gun attraction. Otherwise, we wouldn't see such extreme logical aberrations in some people's attachment to them. Gun worshipers really have no clue why they are so enamored of them.

Hendersonville NC

Username hidden
(2984 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

1. The Penis Theory[40] Continued...

Tanay's arguments for the penis theory validate only his own (self-admitted) fear and loathing of guns. He asserts that "the owner's overvaluation of his gun's worth is an indication of its libidinal value to him." Because Tanay never attempts to explain what "overvaluation" means, there is nothing to distinguish guns from the "overvaluation" involved in having other collectibles. People who do not share the passion often marvel at the amounts of time and money spent by others who "over-value" such more or less intrinsically worthless items as old phonograph records, musical instruments, cars, political campaign buttons, stamps, coins, and candelabra.[48] Much the same problem characterizes Tanay's evidence of "narcissistic investment":

Most of the dedicated gun owners handle the gun with obvious pleasure; they look after the gun, clean, polish, and pamper it ... speak of their love and respect for guns.

Most, if not all, collectors revere the objects they collect; they clean and polish them (if coins or antiques) or encase them (if gems or musical instruments) in velvet, suede, or other attractive settings. Are all collectors motivated by feelings of penile inadequacy? Or does Dr. Tanay's depiction of gun owners reflect only his own narrow-minded inability to evaluate the feelings of those who love and respect something he admittedly loathes?

A final point of interest is Dr. Tanay's citation of Freud's view that weapons may symbolize the penis in dreams. This, Freud said, is true of dreams involving any long object (e.g., "sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees") but especially objects that may be viewed as penetrating and injuring ("... knives, daggers, lances, sabers; firearms are similarly used ..."). This passage refers to dreams in general without distinguishing gun owners from others. Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of--in any event, he does not cite--other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but (p.14)with fear and loathing of weapons.[49] The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Brooklyn Park MN

Username hidden
(4925 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I didn't shave my balls and renew my paid membership to participate in a discussion with someone who who fails at discussions. When you resort to Markley's law, you fail.

Excerpts From GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control By Don B. Kates, Jr.

1. The Penis Theory[40] Reviewing unsubstantiated, mostly "derogatory ... speculative literature on the personality characteristics of gun owners," the NIJ Evaluation (p.120) mentions "the psychoanalytic" view that "weapons are phallic symbols representing male dominance and masculine power." The idea of gun ownership as sexual aberration has been casually espoused by such anti-gun luminaries as Arthur Schlessinger Jr., Harlan Ellison, Mike Royko, and Joyce Brothers.[41] The only serious study endorsing this view is by psychiatrist Emmanuel Tanay who sees "the need for a gun" as serving "libidinal purposes ... to enhance or repair a damaged self-image ..., and involving "narcissism ..., [p]assivity, and insecurity".[42]

There is no viable argument for the penis theory as against pragmatic explanations for gun ownership. Psychiatrist Bruce Danto rejects the penis theory because it fails to account for female gun ownership. In fact, 50 percent of those who own a (p.12)gun only for protection are women (especially black women), even though women are much less likely than men to own guns for sport.[43] This pattern is more accurately explained by a woman's need for protection than by feelings of penile inadequacy.

Dr. Danto also notes that the penis theory would predict that male gun owners would lean toward the largest barrel and bore weapons available. But the respective popularity of guns of different sizes uniformly appears to reflect purely pragmatic concerns.[44] The penis theory is equally incapable of explaining other demographic differentials in gun ownership. When all gun owners are counted (not just those who own for protection alone), survey evidence shows that

The explanations here are, once again, purely pragmatic; hunting is more an activity of rural people generally, and Southerners particularly, than of city dwellers. Among urbanites, guns are most owned by the affluent because they are more likely to hunt--and also to have the money to afford guns and property that they may need to defend. Most guns are owned for sport, and males more than females engage in gun sports. Survey show Protestants are more likely to hunt than Catholics or Jews (Protestantism is most predominant in rural areas); beyond that, Protestants and gun owners both tend to be descended from older American stock, retaining cultural values redolent of the "individualistic orientation that emanated from the American frontier ..."[46](p.13)

In contrast, the penis theory has no explanatory value for these demographic trends. Are Protestants or the affluent or rural dwellers or Southerners more subject to feelings of penile inadequacy than Catholics or urbanites or the poor, and so forth? Incidentally, it may be relevant to note that surveys show gun owners are no more hostile to feminism and the women's movement than are non-owners.[47]

Continued...

Brooklyn Park MN

Username hidden
(4925 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Nke, you posted the following in another thread on the topic of gun control, which I’ll call Exhibit A:

"Robert, the conservatives have been blaming the nations ills on books, movies, music and video games for years."

That was in response to Robert’s post which I’ll call Exhibit B, that stated:

“Just because the conservatives blame the killings on the media or books, doesn't mean that I wont defend their right to their illusions of power from the guns they want.”

Recently you posted a quote in this thread that I’ll call Exhibit C, that includes the following:

“Men are also more likely to consume violent media -- movies, video games, TV, music -- which cumulatively makes them more aggressive. The epidemic of guns and violence is due not only to years of violent media being consumed, but also to men feeling increasingly emasculated in a scary world.”

Are you saying that those who point to the media and entertainment industry as a root of aggression are correct, or are you affirming you are acting as a troll, as expressed in your post below that I'll call Exhibit D?

"I can post anything real or imaginged and can count on right wingers fighting my feigned arguments."

Brooklyn Park MN

Username hidden
(4925 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

LMFAO at Bobby,

All this from the guy who condones hitting the WH with hellfire missles and he fails to see the similarities between himself and McVeigh.

Peoria AZ

Username hidden
(2404 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Fucking priceless LMAO.

Mickey.

Rayne LA

Username hidden
(5231 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Azqt:

Presidental powers such as excecative orders aren't going around the constitution. He cannot. Hangs it, all he can do is pass an order which the next president can undo or the congress challenge in the courts.

Now if you had the ability to read at an adults college level, I would direct you to reading how the courts actually work and how our government has two body's which make law and one which decides if it is legal or not.

The rule book requires both houses of congress and the president. Bit the rules maybe bent by either the congress or the president.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(8183 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Just:

Um, when was the constitution written? When was the artical which freed the slaves enacted?

It has been changed many times already.

Oh and take your racist ass back to the 1800s or throw it off a high cliff onto sharp rocks. The future doesn't need bigots like you.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(8183 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Robert you never fail to floor me with your bull,The Constitution was put into place to never be changed especially a fucking American hating Muslim POTUS. And fj is right if OBAMASS Keeps his shit up? someone will shut his ass down!!!!